Comments

Take a look at what Peter Hendrickson has to say about this case at www.losthorizons.com.and search the newsletters. The chosen jury has little to decide concerning the rule of law.

Posted by: sandman | Mar 24, 2008 3:59:07 PM

The jury should have used their right
of nullification where income taxes
are concerned.

Posted by: Kim | Mar 24, 2008 5:12:19 PM

I fail to see how race, color, creed, gender, or any other factor could influence a juror's decision to conclude that the evidence in Mr. Snipes' case established:

1. Mr. Snipes was a person required to file a return;
2. Mr. Snipes failed to file at the time required by law; and
3. Mr. Snipes failure to file was willful.

#1 & #2 were a given. The only issue for the jury was willfulness.

And don't forget, he was acquitted of violating section 7203, failure to file, for some of the years charged (along with every other crime he was charged with). I don't think the race card is a strong play in this instance.

Posted by: Adjunct Law Prof. | Mar 24, 2008 5:57:08 PM

Kim, which law are you referring to?

Could you please show me the law that requires him to file and pay taxes?

Posted by: Bill | Mar 25, 2008 6:35:40 AM

Although I agree with you, ALP, I think the all white jury was purposeful on the Snipes legal team's account for this very reason. After making a huge stink @ the KKK in Florida and wanting a change of venue, they then deliberately chose an all white jury... It was a ploy, I think, for an appeal if the verdict was bad, and mitigation in sentencing.

Snyder involved an application of Batson, which holds that peremptory challenges cannot be made for race-based reasons. The remedy for a Batson violation is a new trial. If I were Mr. Snipes, the last thing I would want would be a new trial.